Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, November 20, 2008 09:33 AM

  @omoo

  The question of trolldom arose indirectly because you questioned my tactics. There are legitimate and illegitimate ways of arguing, and I was arguing that mine were legitimate. Otherwise, I have no quarrel with you on that topic.

  My original thesis, that it is correct and permissable to evaluate a lawyer for the cases that they take, does not have much to do with the idea that lawyers should only take the cases of those people they (or society believes) to be good and righteous.

  Exactly. And I think this is obviously false (emphasis mine). These theses seem indistinguishable to me, unless you lay out some ground rules, as I did, to make sure one does not become the other.

  If you tell me that you defended chiquita, a company that has historically had a toxic influence on the third world, out of some sense of duty to ideals of justice, then I'll call that out as bullshit.

  But no one has quoted Holder as saying that. So, so what?

  If you tell me that you did it for money, prestige or career-advancement, that's something I'd believe. It has nothing to do with whether or not they should be defended. It has everything to do with the kind of candidate for a position in government that I think you are.

  Why else do we big-head monkeys do things for? The basic question is, (as before, with trolls) How do you tell the difference between a typical lawyer and Dick Cheney? Why, you look at the facts, obviously. What was done that was wrong? What might have reflected bad judgment? One data point does not do anything.

  Unless you think that a lawyer is required to take the case of any person that walks through their door, regardless of their ability to pay (or overpay). The lawyer makes a choice about what cases to take, and it is permissable to evaluate them based on that judgement.

  Again, that's fine if you use a rational, objective protocol to discern patterns of illegality, unethical behavior, or bad judgment. You never tried.

  Glenn argued that it was illegitimate for someone to use the work for Chiqita as a factor in evaluating the candidate for AG. I argued that it was legitimate. The right to representation never came into it.

  If Glenn (or I) reduced your argument down too much, it's because you let him. In fact, your comments begged him to.

  —Baldie McEagle Read Baldie McEagle's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel